Re: Pair Programming Workflow Suggestions
- From
Tim Visher <tim.visher@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 20, 2009, 15:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <c115fd3c0909200837r2b987bdcw2d360d172611ad3d@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20090916141730.GA24893@vidovic>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@gmx.fr> wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> The 16/09/09, Tim Visher wrote: >> >> Pairing, on the other hand, is much more >> tightly integrated than that. Just like in Brian's post, it's really >> a situation of Dev1 _&_ Dev2 wrote this feature, but one of them >> happened to be typing and doing most of the nitty-gritty developing. >> Changing the authors between committs almost seems to introduce an >> arbitrary level of distinction where it's no longer _both_ but _one >> then the other_. Does that make my question any clearer? > > FMPOV (and to follow the Pair Programming purpose), there isn't an "I" > in "Pair". So having the same author name and sign-off for each pair is > what makes most sense. IMHO, "dev1_and_dev2" is actually the best > option.
That's certainly interesting. I guess I just assumed, not having too much practical experience with actually pairing, that the driver would be doing most of the coding for a given commit… It's true that that's not really the case.
Do you guys use Hudson or something similar when you're pairing? How's your experience regarding how it interoperates with the dev_1_and_dev_2 naming convention?
-- In Christ, Timmy V. http://burningones.com/ http://five.sentenc.es/ - Spend less time on e-mail